charles brough

No, 200 in your social circle that you can keep track of. In total. Obviously, it's possible to recognize far more people. But the group of people that you maintain a stable social relationship with will not exceed 230... or at least, that's what has been proposed. It is described here (wikipedia). It's called "Dunbar's number".

Yes, we evolved in small groups so we are unable to really show much compassion and concern for those who are outside of what we regard as our group. People can show more genuine concern and compassion for a dog trapped on a sinking ship than whole nations suffering near starvation.

 

We are territorial also. We go to war rather than lose just a segment of our land. We also try to expand our territory, even create empires over other people. We still do; we're even doing it now.

Good question. I don't think we actually have gone much further than the groups of a hundred or so.

 

How many people do you interact with on a regular basis? I bet the number comes close that about a hundred. Perhaps two hundred.

Yes, actually studies have been done on this and the absolute maximum number is two hundred. We cannot remember names or faces of that many. (Some rare people are unable to recognize faces at all). We are limited that way because we evolved to not need to remember that many. We are actually more comfortable in groups of about forty people, a common hunnting-gathering group size. It is not concidence that platoons are about that size, as well as congregations, orchestras, and school classes. Army squads and sports teams are the size of the male hunting teams of hunter-gatherer groups and, as well, war parties,

Doomsday is quite literally a single day when the world as we know it is destroyed. Apart from a big rock from space (I guess that's why you choose to say "24 years"?), or one of those mega-mega-mega-disasters that the Discovery Channel / National geographic have some "documentaries" about, that's unlikely to happen. And given the frequency of those disasters, it's not something that we should worry about.

 

The title of this thread however suggests some other issues. Global issues, caused by ourselves (humans). And that's a whole different story. Those are indeed urgent, and something to worry about, but they are slower processes, and the problems caused by them will not wipe out a civilization in a single day.

 

Population growth and our sources for energy are probably the most urgent things. I do not think that we are doing enough to prevent any problems, and indeed these might cause (eventually) civilizations to fall. But I just wouldn't call that "doomsday". It's more like the Roman empire came to an end. It's a succession of poor decisions and relatively small calamities.

I agree. The word "Doomsday" was applied by the National Geographic channel to the prepper series but a slow population crash is far more likely in the decades to come than a single-day catastrophy.

It seems to me that over-population has little to do with not being enough food or being too jammed together. Any primate group tends to experience over-crowding when the group size grows in excess of the size its species evolved to be optimal to it.

 

We humans evolved to live in hunting/gathering size groups of less than one hundred. How have we manage to so dramatically exceed that---or have we?

Are you one of those who laugh at the "Doonsday Preppers (see the National Geographic channel prepper series) and dismiss them because "we have always had 'End Times' fanatics?"

 

If so, you might consider that a real one could be coming that has nothing to do with religion.

I just read the word "prepper" used in my newspaper for people prepairing for travel. The growth of "doomsday prepping" has introduced a new word into our language. (Perhaps you've seen the "prepping" series on the National Gegraphic TV Channel).

 

What is your theory as to why so many people who look ahead see no hope? Is it justified?

 

If you think it has always been this way and that its just a media fling, try listing all the world problems that are not being effectively dealt with . . .

advertising link to blog removed

So your first post promulgated falsifications/distractions about Rodney King and your most recent seems to claim that the only reason a young black man's killer would be convicted is the threat of riots

Why be so hostile?

 

But, something that is interesting to me is that when I hear these things reported, I always give benefit of the doubt to the police. I figure there is obviously more to the story that will explain their actions. Other people distrust police automatically. So, we all have bias and we need to be careful about rushing to judgements.

I agree. I am dismayed about how the information we get from the media shifts from one thing to the opposite and back, that is, how deceptive a picture we are getting. I no longer try to judge who was wrong. It is a mistake. A more accurate resolution will eventually come out.

Yes, at least manslaughter, although the shooter provoked the situation.

 

Zimmerman effectively stalked Martin (in Martin's eyes and those of potential bystanders) by not revealing his involvement with Neighborhood Watch. When Martin confronted him, Zimmerman did not reveal his involvement with Neighborhood Watch and probably did not "back down" or walk away, seeing as he had a gun and still considered Martin as "suspicious". And then, when it was Martin (!) who seemed to invoke the Stand Your Ground statute, Martin reacted wrongly.

 

So here you have it. Two people under a gross misinterpretation by one, both apparently invoking the Stand Your Ground statute, and the situation degenerated into two gunslingers in Dodge City, except that one of them never had a gun.

 

Conclusion: It's a bad law.

I agree that its a bad law. Also, I notice that the first media photos show a picture of a mug-shot-like photo of the Mexican American and a tall and muscular Afro-American male. The first fotos made the self-defense concept a bit unbelievable, but the second ones made the claim very much believable. It was reported today that there was blood on his head when he was checked.

 

I don't know most of the details and none of us do, but there is enough to suspect that the Mexican-American could end up convicted because "the system" is afraid an aquittal would end in riots.

Due to the nature of Florida law, it appears that the judicial system has to prove that the vigelante who shot the Afro-American youth did not kill in self-defense and/or that killing was a hate crime. If it does not succeed in either, he would have to be acquitted. That

could lead to race riots.

 

I lived in Los Angeles through two such riots. In the Rodney King riot, it started when a group of police beating down Rodney to the ground. A tape of it was shown and it did look brutal. However, it was never made clear that Rodney was a huge and powerful individual and on some sort of a powerful and illegal stimulant.

Genes that promote behaviours in groups that survive better, whether it be detrimental to out-groups or not will tend to get passed on, that's what selfish gene theory actually explains.

 

You could call the theory the co-operative gene, or the social gene and it would not change what the theory actually explains.

Thanks. I was just going by the title as you suggest. I would say the hippish "selfish gene" title is rather appropriate. To me its just natural selecton, biological and group/social.

Dear fellow members, Thank you for the present debate on understanding the human brain. Could I test your patience with a couple of light hearted observations; you see I have just had a brainwave. I dreamed a dream and out of that dream, which took me all over this world at no cost and into realmes of the mundane ( my everyday existance ), I had an awakening Question. What real business is my brain up to? Are dreams play time for the brain? Complex dreams are busily being composed and stressed over by an agitated chemical process, or maybe neuron activity is involved. Why? Is dreaming part of the work of the brain? If so, where, or what, or who are dreams directed at? What useful purpose do they serve? I am not asking fellow members for posts here. Nor am I asking members for answers to my questions. I am making observations that certainly point to the difficulty in understanding the human brain. westwind.

Surely you don't expect the forum members to give answers to all those questions!! That is what education is for. You go to college, or you do research on your own. All that you are unfamiliar with has been reseached and you could learn a lot from it.

Just like there are carnivorous plants, there are carnivorous sponges, which trap passing prey with tentacles and engulf them, eventually digesting them. As with carnivory in plants, the sponges resort to this method in environments where their primary nutrient source (particulat matter filtered from the water) is not availible in sufficient quantities.Mokele

Here's another one: there is an ameba size cellular organism called the "slime-mould slug. These amebas gather together in long strands when their food source shrinks. These strands act like worms that move away from the water to a high point, splitting the worm to go around both sides of things. Then they compact themselves one upon the other into an upward-like worm so that those on the top are exposed to any animal that walks by. They are picked up in the animals fur and, like a bee taking pollen, it is spread to a new territory for the slime mold slug.

Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself?

 

Also, much of the brain is inaccessable to us consciously. Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself?

Perhaps you are asking it is possible that we will ever understand everything there is to know about the brain and how we think. The answer of course is "no." We will never know everything about anything.

 

Every years, we build a better, more accurate picture of how the brain works, and that is what science does. As I explain in "The Last Civilization," science is a constant effort to improve our understanding. Since we will never understand everything, we will always have science, or at least have it as long as we humans exist.

Actually, the scientific revolution started roughly around 1550.

That's right. It started with "The Enlightenment" and "The Age of Reason." They began when the Reformation gradually freed people from the confines of the single, Catholic, way of thinking.

 

I think I understand "selfish gene theory" and I definitely understand evolution in general, but what about when people are willing to give up their life because they know it will save other people or even for concepts like the truth or liberty, even if they won't really be recognized? And what about free-will? Can't you do things because you freely want to and not because of a mechanism? Sure, a mechanism can cause the release of a chemical which has a bunch of complex stuff going on and causes a feeling of compulsion to do something, but despite all that work, you can just ignore it and do whatever some entity that is your consciousness wants to do.

Great questions? The "selfish gene" theory may well have some value in dealing with lone organisms, but it is hopeless in answering the questions you raised. The mechanism involved in GROUP organisms (such as we are) is clear over Gould, Dawkins and the other's heads.

 

Any animal behavioralist will tell you that group animals such as we (who evolved in hunting/gathering size groups roughly forty people) are innately motivated in a social way that became genetic. In other words, we have social instincts.

 

In us and most other mammal groups, the males compete for status and the winner, the Alpha male impregnates more females as reward for leading the defense of the group and its territory, keeping down the juvenile males (keeping order!), and setting where, when and how to hunt. They lead the "war party" (sports team?) and hunting pack. The females are compansionate and raise the children and gather (shop?) All are motivated to care for the rest of the group to gain status. This is instinctive in all group mammals. Every member benefits by caring for the others at the expense of, if necessary, all outsiders.

 

In other words, all in an effective group benefit. Groups with members that are socially weak do not survive. Chimps have been seen attacking another, weaker group and killing every member in order to take the other group's territory. (We call it colonialism).

 

In "The Last Civilization," I show how we use ideology to expand the size of our groups so that we still function as effectively and efficiently in them as in the hunting/gathering size groups we were limited to before the development of language and speech. I also show how natural selection occurs between these expanded groups or "societies."

 

We have social genes, not selfish ones!

Will someone please enlighten me? This thread goes on and on about what is in "the Center of The Universe," but no one has explained whether the universe even has a center or not! That could, after all be important since it is what this whole long thread is about!

We have a great subject for this thread. It is a shame to see it abused by hostile and uninformed posts. This should be reported. . .

Charles Brough,

 

So do you think that the failure of our secular system gives some validity to religion as far as non believers are concerned, and as far as religious connection to building civilizations and establishing moral and ethical stability is a more acceptable way than most unbelievers would admit?

 

Close, but not quite. The weakening of both religious and secular ideology by growing division ("sectarian") causes behavioral deterioration (social problems) which alarms people who then turn back to the founding faith in hope of re-stabilizing society. That is conservatism and "religious regression." In Roman times, with the end of the polytheistic age, regression back to the old polytheisms did not save the Greek-Roman society. Instead, people turned to an ideology built on the belief in one single and less "spiritual" and more abstract god, one who had no image.

In the same way, the old Christianity-based society will, in turn, be replaced with one that is non-theist and hence better able to accommodate to modern science, dealing as it does with natural cause.

 

As someone once said: "Prejudice is a kind of reasoning, operating subconsciously". This prejudice/ reasoning, enables everyone in the world to recognise Western Civilisation, as superior. Eastern people are only hostile to the West, because they feel inferior, and jealous of Western Civilisation.

That's it in a nutshell - isn't it?

Yes, a nutshell distortion. People recognized the West as "superior" because the US was so rich and so powerful. People adopted Western secular doctrines because they hoped they would then become richer and more powerful also.

 

But as they become more prosperous and we more divided and our policies intrusive, our popularity sinks, our influence weakens and more people turn back to their old faith. Militants grow more powerful.

Well, personally I get the impression that Islam is just making a nuisance in the world. Suicide bombers - who respects them? They're not heroes. Just misguided individuals, probably rather stupid, who've been misled into believing that by blowing themselves up, they'll enter into Paradise.

 

Could anyone really be that daft? However, Islam doesn't really matter - as long as the desert superstition is confined to its own impoverished countries. All Islamic countries are backward. They only keep going, by relying on food and medical aid, from the advanced and enlightened Christian West. The West shows enormous tolerance.

 

However, this tolerance will only continue, as long as Islamic countries don't try to stop the West sucking oil. If any Islamic country starts getting too uppity, it'll get put in its place by the West. We've got nuclear weapons. They haven't.

 

Sorry if this sounds a bit chauvinist. But I tried reading the Koran, and it didn't make much sense. After wading half-way through it, I gave up.

 

I can read the New Testament, and get an intelligible message. But the Koran? No wonder the the Islamic countries are always in a state of confusion!

I can understand why you would be partial to the New Testament in favor to the Koran (after all, it has had more influence on how we think), but be reasonable. You know your history and that the Muslims created one of the world's greatest civilizations. It was supreme in the world in about the 12th century. So did the Hindu civilization based upon their worship of hundreds of thousands of different gods. The great civilization of China was based on ancestor worship! The value of a religion is determined only by how well it built civilization, that is, how well it worked. Religions have no other value. All of them are too old and now obsolete, but they persist because our Secular ideolgy has been unable to replace them.

 

The problem now is that we lost control over the oil there when the West gave up its empire, and we have been pushing them around ever since in order to get back control. We invade them, interfere politically, assasinate scientists, bomb them, and even imposed a Judaic government on them which we still back politically, economically and militarily. We allowed Isreal to build nuclear weapons but proceed to shut down the Iranian economy becuse they feel unsafe and want one to.

 

I believe things will continue to grow worse until the old, world-divisive religions---and Marxism--are replaced. That task will take a better belief system than we now have anywhere.

IMMORTAL, your long quote is informative, and written by a believing Muslim. As you indicated, the Israeli issue is not the only one. It is, however, the one that most Muslims are aware of and which is a constant source of deep esentment. The other issues are understood more by better educated Muslims.

 

Our understanding of the issue was labeled as "depressive" in one of the posts above. In a way it is because it is accurate and shows the direction the world is going. People sense that. Our secular system is weakening and losing its ability to bring unity to the world. The old religions are becoming more assertive. The US is now wasting its resources, men, and wealth hopelessly trying to "solve world problems." If anyone is interested in where this is going, I would be glad to show it---or check out the URL below.

As someone once said: "Prejudice is a kind of reasoning, operating subconsciously".

 

This prejudice/ reasoning, enables everyone in the world to recognise Western Civilisation, as superior.

 

Eastern people are only hostile to the West, because they feel inferior, and jealous of Western Civilisation.

 

That's it in a nutshell - isn't it?

Close . . . The people in other ideology-based societies, such as Islam, feel a genrally-repressed humilation and resentment towards us because they see us as imposing Israel on them. To them, it is a blot on their fourteen hundred year-old civilization.

 

Most Muslims want to liberalize their old faith by adopting our "road-to-economic-success" secular ideology. Bur some who see no economic future, especially unemployed young men, fall back to the old faith and see their humilation as a need to re-assert Islam's stature by defeating us and our world influence.

 

So they developed the despicable act of terrorism as the only effective means of achieving that. With it, they are achieving more success than we admit to ourselves. Their 9/11 attack has cost us thrillions of dollars of our pwn and the world's resources. We are being slowly bled to death.

As understood by modern philosophers, 'metaphysics' is the attempt to bring rational clarification to problems and puzzles generated by empirical science, so it is strictly complementary to science, not contradictory to it.

. . . as you imply, it is philosphy.

So the question is why is our civilization loosing its ability to deal effectively with world problems? Is it because we are religious, too religious, or not religious enough?

 

Here is the answer:

The only reason the world can get along, divided as it is between our large religion-based societies such as Islam, the (Christian) West, the Marxist East and Hindu India is because the US became the strongest and most prosperous nation on Earth. People all over the world then tried to adopt our secular belief system because they figured it would enable them to become strong and prosperous also. And with most of the world adopting it, we as its leader, were able to lead the world into a "World Community of Nations" and create "the Global Economy."

 

However, we have been gradually losing both our military superiority and prosperity. So, the rest of the world has also been losing respect for our secular belief system and has been turning back to their old and uniformly intolerant faiths. The Christian Right in the US, Ultra Orthodix Judaism, Muslim fanaticism . . . Even Chinese Marxists are now trying to resurect their old Maoism.

 

The result of all this is that world cooperation has become more difficult and the US become increasingly unable to get agreements needed to solve world problems.

 

So the question is why is our civilization loosing its ability to deal effectively with world problems? Is it because we are religious, too religious, or not religious enough?

 

Here is the answer:

The only reason the world can get along, divided as it is between our large religion-based societies such as Islam, the (Christian) West, the Marxist East and Hindu India is because the US became the strongest and most prosperous nation on Earth. People all over the world then tried to adopt our secular belief system because they figured it would enable them to become strong and prosperous also. And with most of the world adopting it, we as its leader, were able to lead the world into a "World Community of Nations" and create "the Global Economy."

 

However, we have been gradually losing both our military superiority and prosperity. So, the rest of the world has also been losing respect for our secular belief system and has been turning back to their old and uniformly intolerant faiths. The Christian Right in the US, Ultra Orthodix Judaism, Muslim fanaticism . . . Even Chinese Marxists are now trying to resurect their old Maoism.

 

The result of all this is that world cooperation has become more difficult and the US become increasingly unable to get agreements needed to solve world problems.

Social theorists - I can understand your criticism a lot more there; although I don't agree with it because I suppose in some ways much of my work has been in critical theory. Moreover,I would standby my suggestion that discourse analysis can be a very useful tool box with which to understand and elucidate hidden motives and unspoken attitudes. Take a look at most of the religion threads here - especially those that deal with atheism and I am sure that you will discern a use of language, definition, and argument that is bound to constrain the discussion; once the route of a debate is trammelled then some concepts become unsay-able and others become undeniable.

My work is social theory also in that it is the way I interpret social science data by working on the foundation described below. But I still regard the field itself as riddled with subjectivity because it does not base its interpretation of the data on this:

 

We evolved as small-group (hunting/gathering) primates and feel secure only in such groups. Stress builds up as the group size swells beyond what is optimal to us. The only way we have managed to live in larger groups has been to develop (evolve) the ability to use language and speech into ideological systems that were able to bound us into the larger groups. As we perfected the structure of these ideological systems over the tens of thousands of years, we managed to

keep explanding their ability to bind us together this way.

 

 

(Incidentally, Alexander Pope is my favorite poet of all time)

A little thought provoking. I know that every major civilization has had it's down fall, but to happen to one as advanced as ours would essentially take total destruction. It's hard to imagine that a difference in ideology and personal prejudice could lead to the distruction of the majority of the world. Do you see that happening or could our civilizations downfall be more subtle?

 

And another question, after reading that is; was there ever, throughout history, an advanced civilization that would have been considered a secular one? I don't ever recall hearing of one that didn't have some sort of religious ideology.

 

Also I believe you're correct about a certain amount of prejudice. It's a normal human attribute. A good one too, looked at from a certain point of view. Our prejudices may help us in certain ways in interacting with others that would be harmful had we not had the ability to think that way. So I can see the points from the good and bad sides of prejudices. Something to think about.

What is unique about social evolution is that societies do have life cycles, but when one dies, the people that belonged to it still live. They just converted to a better religion and a new life cycle began, one belonging to their new society, the one their new ideology bound them into. As you can imagine, I am concerned that as stress builds in the decades to come, that there might be a protracted nuclear war or cyber attacks that destroy the world's power and electronic systems. Also, there is the ever-present threat of pestulance, like the plague that reduced our numbers by a third in the Middle Ages.

 

Names change but the process stays the same. All civilizations have had secular ages, we just call them something else. The one existing in Roman times is called Hellenism. The Potolemic dynasty in Egypt was Hellenist, for exampe. It tied Egypt into the rest of the Roman world. In the great Hindu civilization, it was the teachings of the Buddha which later degenerated into a denomination of Hinduism. Even Islam had a relative secular age in about the 12th century. Secular leadership in China began when Buddhism spread there and lasted more than a thousand years.

 

About prejudice, I firmly believe in treating every individual with consideration no matter what I feel about either their race or religion. I do not approve of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, for example, but I would not treat any believer of it impolitely even though they teach the take-over of most of the Near East ("their Promised Land"), the tearing down of the mosque on the Temple Mount and replacing it with their Temple, or keeping their women back and in shrouds like reactionary Muslims do. Is that a "prejudice?" I know you agree it is not . . .

To dismiss it as wantonly as Charles has done above is high-handed and wrong. Whilst sociology might be associated with less than the pure objectivity of some sciences, it does have areas of complete objectivity in its research, and even the areas with a necessary dose of subjectivity are far from useless.

Yes, I agree that sociologists are scientific, even objective, in studying groups. I said ''sociology'' when I really meant social theorists. In fact, I believe all social scientists gather their data as exactly as they can. What is really at issue is how that data is interpreted. That is where specific subjectivity or rationalizing comes in inorder to avoid conflict with our religious and secular systems or ideals.